The Reactor Development Program of the Atomic Energy Commission The Atomic Energy Commission has set u p a planning organization to handle its development of nuclear chain reactors · · · Undisputed leadership of the United States in technical knowledge and facilities is of prime importance to security JXEACTOKS are the key to the future promise of atomic energy for both military and peaceful purposes. The importance of a reactor development program was pointed up in the fall of 1948 when the Atomic Energy Commission organized a Division of Reactor Development devoted exclusively to studying and furthering the development of nuclear chain reactors for use in every aspect of the commission's program. In any discussion of the development program the most obvious fact is that the program faces seemingly insurmountable problems. The number and magnitude of these problems must be appreciated before a proper evaluation can be made of the program's accomplishments. Problems to Conquer A recent speech by Lawrence R. Hafstad. director of reactor development, outlines the difficulties faced by the scientists and engineers who are responsible for furnishing the United States with these essential "machines." Their very structure is of first consideration: The materials chosen for the reactor must withstand not only high temperatures but also high nuclear radiation densities. For any reasonable thermodynamic efficiency in utilizing the great energies available in the atom's nucleus, it is necessary to operate at temperatures well above the conventional engineering range. Furthermore the compactness of reactors, an important inherent advantage, involves heat transfer rates far above those encountered in previous engineering experience. The material ehosen must also have nuclear properties such that it will not capture neutrons and thus deplete the supply and reduc»; the power. Assuming, however, that the structural problems are solved, a still greater problem arises from the fact that the fission products, produced as an essential part of the reaction, "poison" the reaction itself; as Dr. Hafstad describes it, the ashes smother the fire. The problem resolves itself into one of fuel reprocessing. A comparison has been made between reactors and airplane engines. 2480
where tin? engines would have to be dissolved in nitric acid and rebuilt from certified chemically pure iron instead of merely disassembled during routine inspection. The fuel reprocessing aspect alone seems staggering. In connection with heat transfer media required to convert the heat into powrer. AEC researchers are studying liquid metals. Here they must take into consideration the corrosion, erosion, purification, and pumping troubles associated with those elements which have suitably low melting points. To resolve these difficulties and lay a foundation of basic scientific knowledge with which to meet these and tut ure problems, the AEC is sponsoring research in over 50 institutions throughout the country. Some of these research programs deal with specific problems defined by immediate needs; others are of a more basic nature and are intended eventually to lead to fuller understanding of I lie vast subject of nuclear reactions. On the basis of research already carried out. and from observation of the wartime reactors still in operation today, the AEC has concluded that four new types; of reactors should be built in the near future. These are expected to form the backbone of the nation's reactor development program at the present time, and they have been described by ex-Commissioner Robert F. Bâcher as follows: 1. A materials testing reactor (MTR) wnich will be used in the studies of materials to be employed in the eventual building of high-radiation-density reactors. 2. A land-based prototype of a reactor for use in propelling naval vessels. 3. An experimental "breeder" reactor, operating with high energy neutrons, to explore further the possibilities of producing more fissionable material than is consumed in operating the reactor. I t may also produce usable power as a byproduct. 4. A "breeder" reactor designed to operate with neutrons of intermediate energy, with breeding experiments and power production as goals. CHEMICAL
The MTR has been in the process of design at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for two years. Its construction is the joint undertaking of Argonne National Laboratory, the center of the development program, and the Oak Ridge group. It is expected to produce a large amount of energy in a small space, an intense source of neutrons which the commission hopes to use in new physical experiments. The Navy reactor is being developed at Argonne. and Westinghouse Electric Corp. will carry out its construction and operation. It is estimated that actual construction will begin within a year. A single charge of this reactor, when completed, is expected to provide power to propel a ship tens of thousands of miles. In actual shipboard operation, after depletion, or partial depletion, the fuel elements will be removed and replaced by new material while the old is being reprocessed. The high-energy-neutron reactor is currently under design at Argonne; it will differ from the fast reactor now in operation at Los Alamos in that it will operate at a higher power level and use uranium 235 instead of plutonium as a fuel element. Many of its design features have been under actual test for some time. One of the jobs of this reactor will be the conversion of heat energy into electrical energy. The fourth machine in the program, the intermediate reactor, is being planned at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Schenectady, in the hands of General Electric Co. Generation of electrical energy and production of entirely new fissionable material with intermediate energy neutrons are its goals, although Dr. Bâcher has said of this reactor that its success as a breeder is quite unknown at present. Preparations for the machine's construction have been begun at West Milton, Ν. Υ., about 20 miles north of Schenectady. Testing Station The Atomic Energy Commission con cluded, when its reactor plans were out lined, that full speed and maximum efficiency and safety in the program AND
ENGINEERING
NEWS
would be attained b y the installation of a field station for testing the proposed reactors under high level operating conditions. T h e many site criteria—isolation from large population concentrations, availability of water, electric power, transportation, fuel, materials, land, and manpower, satisfactory climate, and geological and hydrological features— led t o the selection of Arco, Idaho, as the testing station site. Hero the national laboratories and private concerns under contract to AEC will carry out final development and proving work, under actual operating conditions, on now types of reactors. This field station will also house facilities for the chemical processing of reactor fuel elements and the recovery of useful material, as well as for the concentration and handling of fission products from the reactors. T h e test station will comprise about 400.000 acres, approximately the size of the Hanford plutonium production center in the state of Washington. In addition to testing reactors the station will undertake to train engineers and technical personnel of industrial and academic groups participating in the reactor development program. The manager of this all-purpose station is Leonard E. Johnston, who was appointed to the position in April of this yaw. The Beginning Stages An evaluation of the actual accomplishments of the development program seems at first glance to comprise mainly plans of projected undertakings. The magnitude of the planning required to put a long-range and complicated prograin into action is obvious. A great deal of the paper work and letting of contracts has already been done, but plans will continue to appear far in advance of concrete results. One area of endeavor in which paper work has resulted in actual figures is the translation of pounds of fissionable material into possible power production. Atomic energy, although not the perpetual motion machine publicized in the popular press, has the inherent possibilities of providing an incredibly compact storage battery. A weight of uranium equal to that of an automobile battery might be capable of 30,000,000,000% of the power delivered by the automobile battery. I t is figures of this sort that provide the incentive for thorough exploration of * reactors' power-producing abilities. What We'll Gain The ultimate goals to be realized as a result of reactor development are many and varied; among them are the ample power and effortless living usually associated with the atomic age, and the military advantages and national security which might be gained b y nuclear propulsion of aircraft and ships. V O L U M E
2 7,
NO.
35
.
.
Of the two aims—military advantage and peacetime utilization—the former is of more immediate concern. But building ship and aircraft reactors is impossible before land-based prototypes have been constructed and tested. T h e development planners have to utilize the methods for attaining a secondary end before they can hope to attain the primary end. However, the same ground—fundamental research—must be covered in the initial stages regardless of what the ultimate purpose may be. Dr. Hafstad has made the analogy of a transcontinental journey in the frontier days from Washington, D . C , to two points on t h e West Coast. Whether the ultimate goal was Oregon or California, the route was the same through the Cumberland Gap and on to St. Louis. Director Hafstad puts civilian power in California and military power in Oregon: The hazards of the journey are all on this side of St. Louis, and so far the atomic energy program is only approaching Hagerstown, Md. Present Operations The strong applied research program of the A E C , the authority for which is centered at Argonne National Laboratory, has allowed the development of numerous reactors with single and s p e cific purposes. The chain reacting pile at Chicago, which began operating on Dec. 2, 1942, gave the first controlled chain reaction achieved in the U. S. atomic energy enterprise. A scries of reactors was built during the Avar which culminate'd in the huge, single-purpose production reactors at Hanford, Wash. The Hanford piles are in continuing o p eration today, converting nonfissionable U238 into fissionable plutonium for use in atom bombs. The existing Oak Ridge reactor produces isotopes for peacetime research purposes. A research reactor has been constructed and put into o p eration at Los Alamos laboratory; it utilizes high energy neutrons and plutonium as nuclear fuel. Another new reactor of more conventional design is nearing completion at Brookhaven N a tional Laboratory. Long Island. Worth-while Expenses But further generations of reactors are required before full use can be made, for the military or civilian, of the power in the atom. Cost considerations, of course, play an important role. A t tempts to evaluate the cost—or worth— of a single reactor are difficult unless at the same time other features are considered. T o the cost of the structure itself, as A E C Chairman Lilienthal has pointed out, must be added the expense involved in necessary safety and health measures, in heat transfer and chemical processing facilities, in people to do t h e operating and maintenance and research.
AUGUST
2 9,
1949
and in the buildings and facilities needed to maintain the people. Altogether, Mr. Lilienthal estimated, the cost of a reactor runs to something like $50 million. The worth of atomic bombs in dollars or equivalent divisions of battleships or aircraft has been of interest also; the atomic energy program's large expenditures have raised the question, "Is this program economical?" Dr. Hafstad has this to say: Our daily war expenses at the end of the last war were approaching $300 million by government calculation. If the two atom bombs dropped were instrumental in shortening the war by even 10 days, the entire $2.5 billion cost of the Manhattan effort can be written off as a success, and a value, rather than cost, can be attributed each atom bomb of at least $1.5 billion. Another estimate can be attained by consideration of the property value of areas destroyed b y the bombs; here Dr. Hafstad finds that the destruction per bomb represents about $300 million. Another independent estimate is obtained by a comparison of the effect of a bomb with that of T N T . Allowing for "over-kill" of large T N T charges at the center, one A-bomb is worth approximately 2,000 tons of T N T . If one of our large bombers can carry a pay load of about 10 tons, then to carry 2,000 tons would require 200 planes. Including the cost of logistic support in combat each plane can be considered to cost about $2 million. Since one A-bomb makes one bomber the equivalent of 200 planes carrying T N T , one bomb is "worth" S400 million. The cost aspects of the nuclear reactor program are considered justified in the light of the benefits already realized from atom bombs, and the men of vision who make long-range plans for peacetime use of nuclear energy consider the present costs economically feasible as well. The reactor development program is a bold experiment in science, in economics, in cooperation between government and private enterprise, and in vision. Never before has such a huge undertaking been attempted. Report Forthcoming A committee of three m e n has just been appointed by the Atomic Energy Commission to serve in an advisory capacity to A E C ; the group, who have been cleared for access to data in the reactor field, will recommend ways to establish continuing cooperation between the electric power industry and the commission. I t is hoped that the committee's report, which is expected to be completed b y March 31, 1950, will enable the electrical industry t o participate in properly defined areas of the work of the Division of Reactor Development. The report will include a thorough analysis of the reactor development program, 9481
